lol yes I just read he was failing at Fordham so he transferred to Wharton. I always thought he graduated from there and just progressed to graduate school.
Just a reminder that politics are to be confined to the politics forum. So please avoid comparison of presidents based on their political party. Also repeating hearsay and unsupported claims as facts is not permitted, especially within a political context.
Agreeâmultiple SAT 1200ish athletes to Uchic, Ivies, etc from our schoolâŠsome are lower (football). Recruited athletes do not have the same standards for admission.
âŠStill I gotta say itâs a bit surreal to me that athletic stars enjoying guaranteed admissions to some of Americaâs most distinguished academic institutions is seen by many as completely normal and wholly virtuous while at the same time any complaints about the lack of any degree of certainty at even less selective schools for academic stars is decried as shameful sense of entitlement.
What distinguished academic institution gives guaranteed admissions to multiple athletic stars? Name names please. The athletic stars I know (with the pushy parents to boot) end up playing at colleges which barely crack a top 50 list. Some below top 100.
They may be the bees-knees in womenâs golf or gymnastics or track and field or even the helmet sports-- but these kids are NOT getting into âdistinguished academic institutionsâ. Are you arguing with Nathan Chenâs admission to Yale?
"A NY Times article quotes Philip Smith, a former dean of admissions at Williams College: âAthletic recruiting is the biggest form of affirmative action in American higher education, even at schools such as ours.â
The admission process for athletes is inherently different. My college process was typical for a small college athlete. I was a recruited wrestler at Swarthmore, an elite, liberal arts college. I submitted my application a day before the deadline. Two days later my coach called informing me that I could not tell anyone, but that I was going to be admittedâŠ
At the Ivy League, instead of a call from the coach, recruited athletes get âlikely lettersâ with virtually assured admissions if the student applies early decision or action. According to an article in The Atlantic, Harvard ranks its applicants on a 6 point scale. Athletes with 4âs are admitted at a 70% rate."
I would hope that isnât the case for most, at least it isnât for me.
In general I believe that privates should be able to do as they please to align with their institutional priorities as long as they stay within the bounds of legality. After all, they are private institutions.
Regarding publics, particularly state flagships I think that there needs to be much more clarity for high stats kids. CA is particularly bad with this. They pretend that all UCs are equal and that UC Merced and UC Riverside are peers to UCLA and UCB which of course is just foolish though they are both very good schools.
At my kids school (private) many high stats kids rightly or wrongly consider the system rigged against them and donât even bother to apply, particularly Caucasians. They go straight to privates where they have great success.
Itâs not just the privates either. At the solid Public near us the valedictorian didnât get into UCLA or Berkley and was waitlisted at UCI. Her stats were high very high with close to perfect unweighted, weighted capped GPAs and a 4.6 or so fully weighted GPA.
It doesnât change for the very high performing Publics either. Paly (Palo Alto) and Gunn, the two famous Palo Alto pressure cookers get the same acceptance percentages as my kids private. Miraculously for all three they are almost exactly in alignment with the overall acceptance rates for UCLA and UCB every year.
Presumably University of Mississippi. It automatically admits in-state applicants meeting the NCAA minimum academic standards (does not require being an athlete).
Athletes with 4âs are going to be a very small number overall because of the AI requirements. They are going to be in helmet sports (and possibly basketball) and there are likely additional offsetting institutional priorities as well. Generalization is bad.
And on the topic of academic qualifications (from the same Forbes article):
âCollege athletes significantly underperform compared to their peers. William G. Bowenâs study found that athletesâ test scores average about 100 points lower and 81% of recruited athletes in the Ivy League graduated in the bottom third of the class.â
Just to interject â thereâs a HUGE amount of uncertainty and anxiety with athletic recruits, and it can go on for years! You are just seeing the end few weeks, @Vulcan, of a process that has taken two or three years. There is a lot of rejection and angst along the way.
The author seems to be fairly well-versed in the admissions process.
"Scott White
I have worked in college admissions and college counseling for over 40 years, and have written extensively on the college admissions process. I have served as the Director of Guidance at Morristown High School, as a school counselor and Director of Guidance at Montclair High School, and as Director of College Counseling at Montclair Kimberley Academy. My early experience as an admissions counselor at Bard College was vital to my understanding of college admissions. I have been a featured expert on CBS Sunday Morning, the Washington Postâs Answer Sheet and in most major national publications. I currently work as an independent college counselor"
Hereâs his recommendation:
âIt is time to think about the net effects of college athletic recruiting and ideas for changing the process. Except for NCAA Division I basketball, football and track, America, like the rest of the world, should select athletes from those students who attend the school. Athletes should be given the same consideration in the admissions process as other students, like musicians, who dedicate themselves to their craft. Coaches should earn no more than professors or administrators and athletic budgets, particularly at public colleges, should be reset to approach that of other extracurricular pursuits.
âŠ
Sports build positive characteristics in many students, including dedication, perseverance and teamwork. They also are responsible for pushing kids too hard, too fast and too young, putting a strain on family finances and severely distorting the college admissions process, giving privilege largely to the already privileged.â
Here we are with yet another thread turning to angst re: colleges and athletic recruiting.
The only important observation is that many colleges prioritize sports and the recruiting of athletes. Why do you think that is? Iâll give you a hint:
Do I think any of us can impact that? Nope. Seriously, this must be the 612th thread where this is discussed, and newsflash, will end up with reasonable people disagreeing.
Nearly all of the major US universities prioritize sports and recruiting of athletes. Among the top 20 USNWR national universities, 17 are NCAA D1 members and 3 (MIT, Cal Tech, and U Chicago) are D3. Among the top 300 USNWR national universities, only 5 schools arenât NCAA members.
With those statistics, why are the Ivy League schools singled out for their institutional support of varsity sports? They are the same schools that essentially gave birth to US college athletics over a century ago. I think most people would agree that itâs worked out very well for them.
The focus on Ivies ( or top20) is because with the exception of UCLA and Berkeley, the rest are relatively mid size schools where the athletic admits take up a sizeable part of the class, thus affecting admits disproportionately. With a notable exception for Stanford, most of the teams at those T20 schools are fine but not national athletes.
